CAT/C/54/D/440/2010 The complaint 3.1 The complainant contends that, in the light of the threats made and attacks he suffered during the demonstration of 28 September 2009, the charge brought against him of inciting the population to civil disobedience and his Fulani background, he is in danger of being subjected to torture on his return to Guinea. In addition, he is a supporter of UFDG – the party that lost in the elections. 3.2 With regard to the general situation in Guinea, the complainant alleges that, when he submitted his complaint to the Committee, the human rights situation in Guinea remained alarming following the unrest caused by the elections, which the complainant considers to have been rigged. Given that UFDG lost the elections, the members of that party, including the complainant, are political opponents who are in danger. The complainant’s situation is made worse by the fact that he is of Fulani origin. His political position and his commitment to the establishment of the rule of law mean that he is still regarded as an enemy today. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 17 June 2011, the State party noted that all the new evidence that had been submitted to the Committee relating to the complainant ’s alleged participation in the demonstration of 28 September 2009 had been taken into account by the authorities of the State party during the review procedure. 4.2 In order to demonstrate the lack of substance of the complainant ’s claims invoking article 3, the State party makes specific reference to paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997), relating to article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. Although the Committee must take into account the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the issue is to determine whether the individual concerned is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned and whether this risk is foreseeable, real and personal. The State party recognizes that there were violent clashes between the military and the opposition in September 2009, and also within the military junta itself in December 2009. Nevertheless, the security situation has calmed down since that time. 4.3 The State party adds that the situation in Guinea is not characterized by widespread violence. In early 2010, the military junta and the oppo sition signed an agreement concerning the normalization of political relations in Guinea. Following this, a new President was elected, and a national transitional council endowed with legislative powers was established. In early November 2010, Alpha Condé was elected as the new President of Guinea. Although all this has not resulted in an ideal situation in Guinea, the situation in the country does not, by itself, constitute sufficient reason to believe that the complainant would risk being tortured if he were returned there. The State party argues that the complainant has not demonstrated that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Guinea. 4.4 The State party notes that, at his two hearings on 15 January 2010 and 2 February 2010, and in his request for reconsideration, the complainant claimed to have been arrested and detained following the demonstration of 28 September 2009. However, he never asserted that he had been subjected to ill -treatment during his detention. It was only in a letter sent after his initial submission to the Committee that the complainant claimed to have been “tortured, beaten and imprisoned in harsh conditions”, without, however, substantiating those allegations. 4.5 The State party also notes that the complainant does not contend that he was politically active outside his country of origin. The evidence in the case file submitted 4/7 GE. 15-10885